Confirmed (With Pics): Supra Lower Control Arms LCA's on Lexus SC-300
 

For anyone in a similar situation, I can confirm that the Supra lower control arms (LCA's) will fit on a Lexus SC-300.
Me: 1999 Lexus SC-300 (136k miles) with bad ball-joints.
Relevant Parts Info:

96-00 Lexus SC-300 LCA's =
RF - 48068-29215
LF - 48069-29215
($834.42 EA)

97-98 Supra LCA's =
RF - 48068-14090
LF - 48069-14090
($563.17 EA)

93-96 Supra LCA's =
RF - 48068-14080
LF - 48069-14080
($352.43 EA)

I bought the 93-96 Supra LCA's and had them installed without any fitment issues, and afterwards had an alignment done without any issues either. The good news is that everything fits as it should with a cost savings of over $1,000.00. Now for the bad news. There are only two negative side-effects I've noticed after 1-week of driving with the new LCA's. They are:

1. The stiffness of the new LCA's has changed how the car rides. Specifically, when going over bumps in the road, I can feel way more vibration than before. I can hear and feel every reflector I drive over when I'm changing lanes and it only gets worse with pot-holes. However, it's not clear whether this would have also been the case with new Lexus LCA's also. The new rubber on the Supra bushings and ball-joints is said to be stiffer than that of a Lexus, so I would imagine that it would at least have been slightly smoother with Lexus LCA's. Still worth the cost savings to me however.

2. The ride height of the front end appears to be slightly higher. Again, it's not clear whether this would also have been the case with new Lexus LCA's since the rubber on the old ball-joints had deteriorated and may have compressed under the the weight of the front end. The difference in height that I'm seeing now may actually be the correct ride height that the vehicle would have had when it was new. Still it looks odd to me since I'm not used to it.

Other than those two things, I'm satisfied with the Supra LCA's since it has definitely improved the handling of the vehicle and saved a significant amount of money in the process. Pics below:

Attachment 332895
Side-by-side comparison. LEFT LCA = Stock Lexus LCA (I'm told it's aluminum, hence the ridiculous price) RIGHT LCA = 93-96 Supra LCA (Supposedly cast-iron and heavier than stock LCA's)
Attachment 332896
Another side-by-side. The only noticeable differences are that the tab sticking out near the rear bushing, and the small lip surrounding the Lexus LCA rear bushing, are both missing on the Supra LCA. Not sure what they were for, but it's doubtful they make much of a difference.
Attachment 332897
Here you can see the difference in the worn-out ball joint vs. the new joint on the Supra LCA. This is probably why the vehicle has a slightly higher height on the front end now.
Attachment 332898
Finally, this is the Supra LCA installed on my Lexus. It does indeed fit.

Hopefully this thread will put the issue to rest, again, even though there are multiple threads stating that the Supra Arms work... and the differences... but hey - there's still a few that seem to be overly cautious/paranoid.

:) nice pictures -

Very helpful, I hope this clears things up. I always read threads from people claiming that the 93-96 supra LCA's won't fit on 97+ SC's. This proves them all wrong.

Good info, would like an update to this later down the road. :thumbup:

great info, great pictures

yes, please keep updated. I wonder if the stiffness will go down after the rubber gets settled/broken in some

This needs to be made a sticky so it's easy to reference whenever a new user pops up asking the same question.

Killer pictures and part numbers, finally! Way to step into the dark and take a chance for everyone, thanks man!

Is there a difference between turbo and N/A LCA's? I assume no..

Hi, I have a comment on the ride height and stiffness. A mechanic buddy of mine told me that most bushings like that are meant to have a little spring to them but not too much, that is because the center does not rotate so the rubber around the center bushing acts like a spring. so if you tighten the bushings in place with the car in the air then when the car is on the ground the bushing is being stressed and trying to resist (if that makes sense).

To remedy this keep the bolts that hold the CA loose and jack up the control arm end until it is about where it should be when the car is on the ground then tighten the bolts, that way when the car is on the ground the coil springs are providing the preload and not the rubber bushing.

I first encountered this when doing front ball joints on one side of a ford explorer (I know you SHOULD do both sides but the owner was cheap) and when I was done it sat totally leaned to one side (the new side higher). I tightened it like this and it sat flat again, I've been doing them like that ever since.

hope this helps.

Do you have any updated pictures from the side with your 350z wheels on? Maybe from a lateral view to see the offset/fitment and then how the ride height looks now?

funny how it's the exact same part. but marked up so much.

The arm is the same but there's an obvious difference in bushings. It seems to make the car more stiff and even raise it up somewhat.

I thought this was common knowledge but I am very happy to see a thread directly compare the LCA's with pictures and part numbers. Thank you, OP! Definitely should be in the sticky.

I thought Supra UCA's were also compatible-- can anyone confirm? Dorman (aftermarket) makes UCA's compatible with the Supra MKIV and SC 92-00 so I assume they are also the same.

Rear LCA's and UCA's, to my knowledge, are not compatible with the MKIV Supra.

just stickied a supra SC crossover thread so check in there. the front UCA's are compatible also.

Good find with the uca from dorman, wasn't there a few years ago.:thumbup: